Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
 

Sixth Meeting of the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health
 

August 14-15, 2002
 

Meeting Held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel
 

Cincinnati, Ohio
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 

Executive Summary of the Sixth Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1/7 
 

Records of the Sixth Meeting 

August 14, 2002 

Opening Comments ...................................................... 2 
 

Review of Action Items ................................................... 2 
 

Dose Reconstruction Workgroup Report ...................................... 2 
 

SEC Cohort Discussion ................................................... 4 
 

Dose Reconstruction - Atomic Veterans Program . ............................. 5 
 

DVA Adjudication of Claims by Atomic Veterans .............................. 7 
 

Determining PC for Atomic Veterans ........................................ 7 
 

Public Comment ......................................................... 8 
 

August 15, 2002 

Discussion of Comments on the SEC Rule .................................... 9 
 

Vote ........................................................... 11 
 

Town Hall Meeting Comments on the Rule .................................. 12 
 

Dose Reconstruction Workgroup Report ..................................... 13 
 

Public Comment ........................................................ 15 
 

Discussion of the SEC Rule ............................................... 16 
 

Use of an Interim Final Rule .............................................. 19 
 

Vote ........................................................... 20 
 

Closing Comments ...................................................... 20 
 

Public Comment ........................................................ 20 
 

ATTACHMENTS ...................................................... 21 
 

Attachment #1: Draft Agenda, ABRWH, August 14-15, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
 

Attachment #2: NIOSH/ABRWH Action and Topic Item(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health
 

Executive Summary of the Sixth Meeting
 

August 14-15, 2002
 

The sixth meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation Worker Health (ABRWH) was held on 

August 14-15, 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio. All the members were present, including two new 

members representing labor who have been approved by the White House but not yet seated. 

The minutes of the previous meeting were approved with minor edits and are available on the 

NIOSH Website, as are transcripts of the meetings. The status of action items was reported, as 

was the imminent award of the dose reconstruction contract. 

The Dose Reconstruction Workgroup reported on its work the previous day with the 

NIOSH/OCAS staff to assess what will be involved in the processing of a case. The staff was 

commended for the thoroughness with which the cases are investigated. Six completed cases of 

different “efficiency” categories were reviewed, accounting for low and high potentials of 

internal or external exposure. 

The resulting alterations to the Workgroup’s recommendations of the last meeting on the 

independent review panel, case selection, and the workgroup’s/panel’s scope and protocol, were 

reported. Most likely, the greatest challenges will be posed by the mid-level exposure cases 

where data are incomplete. A way will have to be developed to assess the upper limit of 

exposure for the low exposure cases. The copious documentation of some cases indicates the 

time required of the Board members, even with an expert reviewer, to do their reviews. (One 

claim reviewed by the Workgroup exceeded 700 pages.) Levels of review are likely. The site 

profiles under development are expected to help greatly. A quarterly sampling method was 

discussed. An audit list and matrix will be maintained to ensure that factors such as dose ranges, 

geography, gender, etc., are all reviewed. 

Discussion of the SEC Cohort Rule was the primary focus of the agenda. Comments by Board 

members and the public were reviewed. Further comments from the public will be provided and 

incorporated as appropriate. Presentations were heard on the dose reconstruction activities of the 

Department of Defense’s (DOD) Nuclear Test Personnel Review (NTPR) program and the 

Department of Veteran’s Affairs’ (DVA) claims adjudication and probability of causation 

processes. 

NTPR: The NTPR confirms the participation and radiation dose to military and DOD civilian 

personnel (~205,000) who participated in U.S. atmospheric nuclear testing from 1945-1962 and 

those in the occupation force (~195,000) of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from September 1945 to 

July 1946. Most inquiries come through the DVA, and most of the balance are direct. The 

NTPR process was described and is similar to that of OCAS. About ~75% of inquiries are 

answered within 90 days and some veterans are presumptively qualified. NTPR dose 

reconstructions are done with “off the shelf” data before an NTPR inquiry, assigning common 

activities and participation to all unit members. Individual dose reconstructions proceed from 

1/7
 
there, customized to the individual. 

Challenges encountered by the program include the weaknesses of film badge data; changes in 

the NTPR program; improved radiation safety processes; and more accurate dose reconstruction. 

The latter two factors indicated lower doses, which were not welcomed by the public since that 

reduces the likelihood of a successful claim. The program therefore has elected to use the 

historic doses, unless later science lowers the dose. An expert review done of 99 NTPR dose 

reconstructions and of selected cases where veterans requested an NAS review will be reported 

in April 2003. 

DVA adjudication of (statutory listed) disability claims by “atomic veterans” are based on 

exposure during the occupation of Nagasaki and Hiroshima; participation in atmospheric testing; 

and occupational exposure. Of 21,135 radiation compensation claims received by Spring 2002, 

about 2,000 have required a dose reconstruction. 

The DVA’s Office of Public Health and Environmental Hazards (OPHEH) provides medical 

opinions to assist adjudication for some veterans’ claims, particularly those cases of “nonpresumptive” conditions. If an outside physician declares a cancer to be radiogenic (e.g., for 

pulmonary condition claims rather than a cancer), the OPHEH makes the determination. A dose 

estimate from a “credible source” can be provided by the veteran as an alternative to the 

service’s estimated dose. An independent expert is consulted if the doses differ by at least one 

order of magnitude, and the NIH may be asked to name people who could generate a “tie 

breaker” third dose opinion, when needed. The use of the IREP is also being tested. In the 

meantime, the OPHEH is re-evaluating the policy of not using current models when they do not 

benefit the claimant. 

Public comment was provided by several individuals and is reported in detail in the minutes. 

The topics addressed included: 

•	 NIOSH’s need for increased staffing; the need to address how to approach non-SEC 

cancers; and how to handle conflicts of interest among the small group of contractors 

qualified to do this review work. Since the contract was still in negotiation, NIOSH could 

not be specific, but the Board was reassured that the latter will be addressed. The dose 

reconstruction report will include the name of the person who performed the dose 

reconstruction and the reviewer. However, the report is a NIOSH product and only NIOSH 

is accountable for the result. 

•	 Comment that the amount of time necessary to form an SEC is “ridiculous” at 180 days plus 

200 days for congressional action. Many are already sick and people are upset with such 

delays. Uniform doses for workers were not favored since exposures could differ between 

people even in the same room. 

•	 DOE’s health and safety professionals’ standards had suffered lapses, due to the failure of 

DOE to follow up on reported violations and due to pressure. Some records were sanitized 

even before DOE received them. Those ethical lapses caused DOE worker injuries and 

illnesses, but have never been questioned, and their reports bear on claim determination. 

One person stated that all the Oak Ridge data should be suspect. These comments were 

2/7
 
supported by another report of health physicists, industrial hygienists, and health and safety 

staff. Reports were “cleaned up” before DOE even saw them. 

•	 The workers are very wary of the OCAS program; word of mouth in the field is very 

negative. 

•	 The Oak Ridge union did a risk mapping of the site using the medical surveillance 

information, which could provide a lot of information. 

•	 Complexity of records access: some may be obtainable only from the surveillance study 

projects and not from DOE; and some principal investigators have assured workers that their 

data will not be shared. NIOSH reported work with several such PIs and others to gather 

construction workers’ work history data from 5 sites’ different programs. 

•	 Concern about equity issues related to the difference between the Rulemaking/guidelines for 

the original cohort groups and subsequent SECs. 

•	 Concern about records retention, especially at sites scheduled for closure. NIOSH agreed, 

and reported a continued DOE moratorium on destruction of the ~27 records systems 

defined as suitable for epidemiological studies of exposure associated with health outcome. 

Closed sites’ records must be properly stored and traceable. 

•	 The Board was urged to strive to “do the right thing right the first time, and for the right 

reasons.” If additional time is needed to complete the framework for the process, it should 

be taken. 

Discussion of comments on the SEC rule included recommendations to alter the text to allow 

for the following: 1) state that NIOSH will be diligent in identifying/assisting claimants who 

may qualify for a new class; 2) state that the SEC process cannot be used as a route of appeal for 

a denied claim; 3) add a maximum time period to complete the work; 4) clarify that NIOSH 

cannot/will not submit the petition itself; 5) clarify that NIOSH is involved early in these 

processes, not the ABRWH; and that NIOSH will present the petitions for the Board’s 

evaluation, along with its own evaluation plans; 6) clarify that the Board is advisory, not 

adjudicatory; and 7) specify that “other procedures” adopted in the future must not conflict with 

those already established in the Rule. 

Other comments throughout the meeting addressed the need for more emphasis on the group 

petitioning process for SEC status than on individual dose reconstructions; the need for 

guidelines for determining when an adequate dose reconstruction cannot be completed; 

simplification of the petitioning process to encourage more applications and to streamline the 

claims process; and the establishment of a time limit in which to complete individual dose 

reconstructions. If not done in that time and the claimant meets the other criteria, the claim 

should be awarded. 

The Board’s conclusions were to: 

•	 Emphasize to the public that the options are balanced between petitioning as a group or 

individually and, either way, specify how NIOSH can help that along. 

< Recommendation: Reformat the preamble with descriptive information for each section 

and add language stating, for example, that “NIOSH should emphasize the group 

petitioning process (as opposed to individual petitions) and explain/describe the possible 

3/7
 
types of groups that might consider petitioning (e.g., groups of workers with 

undocumented exposures at a facility.) Perhaps change “as opposed to” to “vis a vis” or 

something similar to balance the two types of petitions. 

•	 A definition of “sufficient accuracy” was felt to be needed, in the absence of quantitative 

criteria, to ensure program consistency, the fairness of this process and its assessment by 

any appeal judge, and to enable the Board’s review. The premise for an SEC is that NIOSH 

does not have all the information, thus preventing a dose reconstruction. The line of 

demarcation needs to be clarified between when NIOSH can calculate a dose for a potential 

class to compare that to the level of endangerment, but cannot do so for an individual 

through a dose reconstruction. NIOSH reassured the Board that all possible source terms 

relevant to a claim will be explored (another area in which the site profiles will help.) 

Recommendations were as follow: 

< To ensure a fair and consistent resolution of individual claims the Board recommended 

adding wording to Section E’s definition of “insufficient information” (e.g., “incomplete 

information on source, processes, practices, or source terms.”) 

< Clarify that there is no barrier to an individual in a class in applying for other 

compensation. DOL will send to NIOSH any claim for a non-SEC cancer. 

<	 NIOSH, with the Board, needs to determine if “class” doses could be added to an 

individual dose reconstruction to determine PC for non-SEC list cancers. As now 

written, the regulation does not appear to allow the inclusion of a “class” upper-bounded 

dose with an individual dose reconstructed from outside the class definition. 

•	 “Endangered health” may be better measured qualitatively; for example, simply by presence 

in an area where the risk to one worker can be extended to the whole cohort, reasonably 

bounding the un-reconstructable dose for those likely exposed. The problem pointed out 

was that putting even a “flimsy” number into the elegant IREP model not only results in 

accounting for uncertainty, but also implies some degree of accuracy. 

In a related vein, the Board unanimously agreed to write the Secretary a letter urging 

completion of the MOU as soon as possible, to ensure that complete exposure records will be 

readily available to enable the dose reconstructions to be done in a timely and fair fashion. 

Town Hall Meeting Comments on the Rule 

The comments received at the OCAS town hall meetings held in Buffalo, NY, Cincinnati, OH, 

Hanford, WA, and Española, NM, were summarized. Attendance ranged from <20 at the early 

meetings to ~350 at Hanford. Questions voiced included why they were not included in 

Congress’ cohort; why cancer is the only covered illness; why all toxic exposures and employees 

of atomic weapons employers during periods of residual contamination are not covered; how 

long a dose reconstruction (or determining it cannot be done) will take, how long to get 

contractor support for dose reconstructions, and how long to decide the outcome of a petition. 

Concern was expressed about all delays. Other inquiries addressed the definition and size of a 

class, if members of a class can opt out, if a claim can be withdrawn in order to submit a petition 

and why a claimant has to petition if a NIOSH dose reconstruction cannot be done; and how 

NIOSH will reconstruct the doses. 

4/7
 
In response to Board inquiry, NIOSH reported that the six-month progress report of the residual 

contamination study was in interdepartmental clearance and would shortly be sent to the Hill. 

The framework for Board review of dose reconstructions was refined at this meeting. Among 

the changes were: 

•	 The dose reconstruction reviews will be basic (review of the records NIOSH used), 

comprehensive (review of the entire administrative record, consistency check), and perhaps 

a “blind” category in which the review will proceed from the raw case file data, blind to the 

NIOSH analysis determination. 

•	 Two or three teams of one independent expert and two Board members will do the reviews. 

The expert will do much of the work and report to the team, which will report back to the 

Board or refer the case back to the expert for further work. 

•	 The Board does not approve dose reconstructions; this is a quality control check. If a 

systemic issue is indicated that the Board recommends be changed, NIOSH and DOL will 

review and decide how to address that. 

•	 Sampling would be done using NIOSH’s efficiency process categories and by time period 

and diversity. 

Discussion included the following: 

•	 It is hoped that gender, race, ethnic issues, etc. will be addressed through the site selection 

process. Clarification was suggested that language deleted about claims awarded, claims 

denied, or doses not reconstructable also should be captured through the NIOSH efficiency 

strata. The Workgroup’s criteria addresses the individual level. 

•	 Weighting schemes suggested included categories of compensation or denial, but most 

heavily weighting the middle category. 

•	 An added sentence was suggested that these selection criteria can be changed if a different 

mix is desired. 

•	 To reinforce credibility, ensure that the contractor has a list of expert site workers who can 

help assemble the site profiles. These will be most important in the beginning of the 

process, since the profiles are still sketchy. Also suggested was placing the present profiles 

on the Web site for individuals to comment on and perhaps add information not in the 

official record. The diverse data sources to be used for profile development include the dose 

reconstruction and claimant interviews, documented accidents, databases developed in 

recent years of site activity, DOE’s summary reports, and the needs assessments done prior 

to the work. 

•	 Expansion is underway of four classes of site profile information: characterization of the 

internal and external monitoring programs, medical radiation monitoring program and the 

environmental monitoring program. Later, site histories of processes, air sampling, 

environmental survey data, etc., will supplement claim information. 

Further discussion of the SEC Rule included the following: 

•	 Endangered health. The determination of “endangered health” currently relies on the 

estimate of potential dose. Comments included: 

< The statute’s definition is sufficient and could be operationalized according to duration of 

5/7
 
exposure and monitoring status. 

< Those who believe in linear effects will say that any exposure is a danger to health. 

< Tie the definition to new information about an exposure event that could cause the new 

dose to be added to the IREP analysis done for an incomplete dose reconstruction. 

<	 Specify situations where the dose reconstruction cannot be done with sufficient accuracy 

and the person worked in a facility for one year in an area where they were or should 

have been monitored, and define “monitored.” 

<	 Any specification of time or any parameter will infer that there is a point of 

endangerment, but using a time frame has the advantage of being understandable, 

transparent, and easily applied. Although it may be counterintuitive, it is reasonable and 

parallels the 250 days specified in the legislation. However, some class members might 

not meet the 250-day cutoff. 

<	 Recommendation: NIOSH needs to clearly define for the Board’s review how the dose 

reconstruction is done, the criteria governing when it cannot be done (using the 

regulation’s language), state in the preamble that such guidelines exist, and explain how 

this applies in different situations. 

<	 Recommendation: The Board will explain in a letter to the Secretary its concerns about 

NIOSH’s definition/approach to “health endangerment,” and perhaps suggest alternative 

approaches (e.g., time period), referencing the definitions used in the statute. 

•	 “Proving the negative” when no records confirmation is received. Recommendations were: 

< Rule language should be included that a demonstrated good faith effort to get records will 

suffice. 

< Re-emphasize the original DOE memo about records retention. 

< Specify concern that classes of employees not be defined in such as way as to preclude 

non-SEC listed cancers. NIOSH will look through the Rule to see where that applies. 

The Board agreed to hold a conference call soon to approve the revised language. 

The advantages/disadvantages of using an Interim Final Rule were discussed. This would allow 

moderate changes to be effected more easily than with the formal process to change a Final Rule. 

However, the Board’s recommended operational guidelines could handle most changes. The 

stated disadvantages included potential public perception that an interim Rule means the system 

is not yet ready and may affect how the claims are handled, and that the Secretary may choose 

not to designate any SEC until there is a Final Rule. Upon a close vote (5-4 against), the Board 

decided not to include consideration of an Interim Final Rule in the recommendation to the 

Secretary. 

In closing comments, public concern about the adequacy of NIOSH’s staffing to handle their 

workload was reported, to the Board’s general agreement. An action item was made to ensure 

OCAS’ staff sufficiency after the contractor is in place. The next meeting agenda should include 

an update on the contract’s award and how it will be handled (including issues regarding conflict 

of interest); the status of the claims process; and the status of staff to handle this in the future. 

The next meeting will be held on October 15-16 in Santa Fe, NM. 

6/7
 
7/7
 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health
 

Records of the Sixth Meeting
 

August 14-15, 2002
 

August 14, 2002 

The sixth meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH, or the
 

Board) was held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Cincinnati, Ohio, on August 14-15, 2002. A
 

court reporter transcribed the deliberations of the Board and a complete transcript is available on
 

the Internet, along with the meeting minutes. The meeting was convened by the Centers for
 

Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
 

(NIOSH), the agency charged with administering the Board. The administration is carried out by
 

NIOSH’s Office of Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS).
 

All of the Board members were present:
 

Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D., Chair Sally L. Gadola, M.S., R.N., C.O.H.N.-S.
 

Larry J. Elliott, M.S.P.H., C.I.H., Executive Mark A. Griffon
 

Secretary James M. Melius, M.D. Dr.P.H. 

Henry A. Anderson M.D. Wanda I. Munn 

Antonio Andrade, Ph.D. Robert W. Presley 

Roy L. DeHart M.D., M.P.H. Genevieve S. Roessler, Ph.D. 

Richard L. Espinosa 

Federal agency representatives present were: 

Department of Defense (DOD), Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA): D. Michael 

Schaeffer 

Department of Energy (DOE): Joe Carson 

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS): 

# Office of General Counsel: Liz Homoki-Titus 

# NIOSH: Larry Elliott, Cori Homer, Ted Katz, Jim Neton 

Department of Labor (DOL): Jeffrey L. Kotsch, Rose Toufexis 

Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA): 

# Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA): Jerry Steele 

# Veterans Health Administration (VHA): Neil Otchin 

Presenters to the Board or members of the public who attended over the course of the meeting 

were: 

1
 
Everett Beatty, Sr., Fernald Atomic Trades and Labor Council, Lawrenceburg, IN 

Gary F. Benjamin, Fernald II Workers’ Settlement Fund 

Eula Bingham, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Dept. of Environmental Health 

E. Julia DeHart, Nashville, TN 

Michael Gibson, President, Mound facility local chapter, Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and 

Energy Workers International Union (PACE) 

Ray Green, Atlanta, GA (court reporter) 

Eric H. Kearney, Trustee, Fernald II Workers Settlement Fund, Cincinnati, OH 

Bruce D. Lawson, PACE Medical Screening Program, Oliver Springs, TN 

Mark Lewis, PACE, Waverly, OH 

William McGowan, University of Cincinnati 

Richard Miller, Government Accountability Project, Washington, D.C. 

Marie Murray, Atlanta, GA (recorder) 

Leon Owens, President, Paducah facility local chapter, PACE 

Susan Pinney, University of Cincinnati 

Herman Potter, PACE, Nashville, TN 

MayBeth Potter, RN, Murfreesboro, TN 

Louise A. Presley, Clinton, TN 

Sam Ray, PACE, Lucasville, OH 

Robert G. Tabor, Fernald Atomic Trades and Labor Counsel, Harrison, OH 

Jerry Tudor, United Sick Oppressed Laborers (USOL), Coalition for a Healthy Environment 

(CHE) 

Opening Comments 

Chair Dr. Paul Ziemer convened the meeting at 1:02 p.m. He welcomed Mr. Michael Gibson 

and Mr. Leon Owens, two new ABRWH members who were recently approved by the White 

House but not yet seated. Mr. Gibson serves as president of the PACE union local at the Mound 

site; Mr. Owens is president of the PACE union local at Paducah. The agenda of the meeting is 

attached to this document (Attachment #1). 

Review of the minutes of the July meeting produced several minor edits. Dr. Melius moved to 

accept the minutes as edited and Ms. Munn seconded. The motion was unanimously passed. 

Review of Action Items 

Executive Secretary Mr. Larry Elliott drew the members’ attention to the Board’s chart of action 

items and their status (Attachment #2), and asked the members to prioritize their information 

requests. He reported the Memorandum of Understanding as now in negotiation at the Deputy 

Secretary’s level, and the dose reconstruction contract at the “best and final” stage of 

negotiation. It will be awarded shortly. 

Dose Reconstruction Workgroup Report 

Mr. Mark Griffon reported on the meeting of the Dose Reconstruction Workgroup on the 

previous day and this morning, to assess what is involved in the processing of a claim. Dr. Jim 

Neton and the staff of NIOSH’s Office of Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS) 

2
 
reviewed the entire process, from receipt of the package from the Department of Labor (DOL) 

through the database entries. The workgroup thanked them, particularly for demonstrating the 

thoroughness with which the cases are investigated. The workgroup heard an actual interview 

conducted and commended the manner in which it was done. 

Six completed claims of different “efficiency” categories were reviewed, accounting for low and 

high potentials of internal or external exposure. In some cases, the low dose claims are given 

more attention; the high doses are often clear enough to not require much more detail. The 

workgroup commended the small NIOSH staff for the lion’s share of work done in getting the 

OCAS operation underway. As a result, the workgroup fine-tuned its recommendations of the 

last meeting regarding the independent review panel, case selection, and the workgroup’s/panel’s 

scope and protocol. Their discussions included: 

•	 Criteria for the independent review panel experts will probably use the language of the 

request for proposal (RFP). 

•	 Selection of cases for review will probably be stratified along NIOSH’s efficiency process, 

which groups them according to complexity, to suggest categories from which cases will be 

selected. Geography, chronology and gender will also be considered. 

•	 Agreement to the need to develop a sense of the number of cases to be reviewed, and the 

expected length of the review process. Each panel will have one independent reviewer and 

two Board members. 

•	 Scope: The issues of scope include the depth of the review to ensure that NIOSH had 

adequate data with which to determine causation, and how to review the “completeness” of 

the data, including how to define an end to that process. Since the subcontractor will 

conduct the dose reconstructions and NIOSH will review them, errors in math are less 

likely. But this review can add value by ensuring, for example, the consistency of the data 

within the interviews conducted, the claimants’ allegations, site profiles, etc.; and ensuring 

consistency/fairness between coworkers (i.e., dose reconstructions done for claims without 

much supporting information sent to NIOSH should not be less successful than those that 

do). 

Discussion included: 

•	 The challenge will be in the mid-level exposure cases where data are incomplete. A way 

will have to be developed to assess the upper limit of exposure for the low exposure cases 

lacking adequate data. The cases reviewed by the workgroup indicated the benefit of using 

the efficiency process. 

•	 One case included >700 pages of records and occupied a full week of one staff person’s 

time. The reconstructed dose wound up being considerably higher than the dose of record. 

This infers some time required of the Board members, even with an expert reviewer, to 

review the hundreds of records of the ~8000 cases received by OCAS thus far. 

•	 The inventory of site profiles will take time to build, but could help the low-dose cases. The 

latter’s challenges in particular, with incomplete records, involve avoiding a false negative, 

which relates to reviewing the consistencies across factors. 

•	 One sampling method discussed was to do this quarterly, while maintaining a matrix to 

make sure the dose range, geography, etc., is covered. An audit list will be needed, which 

3
 
will also help estimate the Board’s needed time commitment. 

•	 To avoid a breakdown of the system, levels of review are likely; for example, checking that 

all documents listed were reviewed and not missed, reviewing the inevitable subjective 

judgements, and ensuring that issues raised by the claimant are addressed in the dose 

reconstruction and examining how those are resolved. 

The workgroup agreed to further refine the framework of the review process on that evening for 

presentation and further discussion on the following day. 

SEC Cohort Discussion 

A document was distributed of the comments submitted on the proposed Rule 42 CFR Part 83, 

“Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as Members of the SEC.” A letter will be 

drafted to the Assistant Secretary to report on the Board’s work to date and to transmit attached 

comments on the Rule. Discussion of the input gathered in the OCAS’ public meetings 

included: 

•	 Further comments from the public will be provided and incorporated as appropriate, but 

their representativeness cannot be assessed until the minutes of the public meetings are 

complete. No requests for extension of the comment period have been received. The 

transcripts will be added to the regulatory docket, and be available at all relevant pubic 

meetings. 

•	 Other sites (Oak Ridge, Denver) requested a town hall meeting, but this could not be done 

due to NIOSH’s tight schedule. That interest supports the Board’s wish to meet at places 

near the sites. 

•	 Comments from the meetings have indicated the need for clarification, of several items such 

as: 

< Suppose a person in a class is eligible for compensation for non-SEC illnesses through 

the normal dose reconstruction process. Clarify that having monitoring records to 

support dose reconstruction for other periods of work history does not preclude filing a 

claim and having a dose reconstruction, nor should it exclude an individual as a member 

of a class. 

<	 The definitions of “ill effects” and “endangered health” needs clarification (i.e., an 

individual dose reconstruction cannot be done but a worst case estimate can be used by 

the IREP to generate a quantitative estimate of general health.) 

•	 In defining the potential class, for example, a 48% probability of causation (PC) negates the 

class. But in addition, the class dose cannot be applied to workers who worked 10 years 

before or after and who do not have that type of cancer, because the class dose is not an 

individual dose. This conundrum is part of the OCAS research that would go into 

evaluating the petition to produce a recommendation on how to handle that situation. 

•	 Dr. Melius brought the discussion back to the issue of criteria pertaining to: 1) when a 

sufficiently accurate dose reconstruction cannot be done; 2) the endangerment issue; and 3) 

non-SEC cancer claims in which exposures incurred during the designated SEC time period 

might be added to exposures outside of the SEC period. Doing this process on a case-bycase basis risks arbitrary and unfair decisions. 

4
 
The SEC Workgroup (Dr, Andrade, Ms. Munn, Ms. Gadola, Dr. Anderson and Dr. Ziemer) 

agreed to meet that evening to review the comments on the Rule. 

Dose Reconstruction - Atomic Veterans 

Mr. Michael Schaeffer, a senior health physicist with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

(DTRA), Department of Defense (DOD), outlined the Nuclear Test Personnel Review (NTPR) 

program. There are >50 DTRA offices nationally. The NTPR confirms the participation and 

radiation dose to the 205,000 military and DOD civilian personnel who participated in U.S. 

atmospheric nuclear testing from 1945-1962 and the 195,000-strong occupation force of 

Hiroshima and Nagasaki from September 1945 to July 1946. The program is governed by 13 

public laws, most importantly Public Law 98-542, enacted in October 1984, which requires dose 

reconstruction standards for atomic veterans. The dose reconstruction requirements originating 

from 98-542 include the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) 28 CFR 79, under the Radiation 

Exposure Compensation Act (RECA); the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (DVA) 38 CFR 3; 

and the DOD’s 32 CFR 218, which provides guidance for determining and reporting nuclear 

radiation doses for DOD veterans exposed to atmospheric testing. 

The NTPR’s tasks are: 1) veteran outreach, 2) providing participation verification and dose 

information; and 3) providing information to agencies performing health effects studies (e.g., the 

National Academy of Sciences study of a 40,000-person cohort of the Navy’s Operation 

Crossroads.) 

There are four ways that veterans can make contact with the NTPR program. They can file a 

claim with the DVA or with DOJ, they can reach us through their Congressional representative, 

or they can contact us directly via our 1-800 hotline number. DVA inquiries account for 60% of 

activity, and most of the rest comes from calls or write-ins. With the information from two 

separate contractors that do archival research and dose research, the response is sent and 

databased. This information can enlighten later inquiries from veterans with similar experience. 

The process, which was described and is similar to that of OCAS, generally takes 90-120 days, 

but can take as long as six months, depending upon the complexity of the claim. The goal is to 

resolve 75% of claims within 90 days, and they are achieving that. Also similar to the SEC, 

some veterans are presumptively qualified. The dose reconstruction baseline was developed 

from contemporaneous activity and radiological data: 1) personnel identification, activity, 

location; 2) unit identification, activity, location; 3) weather; terrain; 4) fallout intensity and 

duration; 5) field radiation surveys; 6) shot-specific radiochemical data (fission elements and 

transuranics); 7) personnel exposure data; and 8) post-test site project report identification. 

The exposure scenarios range from exposure to neutron and gamma radiation at the time of 

detonation, or delayed exposure from neutron-induced radioactivity near Ground Zero and 

radioactive fallout on the surface and in the air. No test participants were closer than 2000 feet; 

a few (~1000) were at 2000-10,000 feet; and ~25% (50,000 of the cohort) were up to 6 miles 

away. The balance of participants were even further away and thus were exposed to delayed 

sources of radiation. 

5
 
The NTPR’s group dose reconstructions were generally done before the NTPR inquiry with “off 

the shelf” data. They assigned the same activities to all unit members and assumed full 

participation in unit activities. The individual dose reconstructions, done upon NTPR inquiry, 

are based on the veteran’s activities and anecdotal information, and assigned personal 

participation time. The process was outlined for the Board in some detail. It involves 

constructing tentative scenarios with historical data, identifying and resolving gaps and 

inconsistencies, constructing final activity scenarios (applying health physics data to archived 

data and applying time/motion analyses to troop movements), identifying and quantifying 

uncertainties, and finally, reporting the dose. 

Similar detail was provided on the calculation of internal dose, using data on radiological 

conditions and urine bioassays to confirm badge data, checking pathway assumptions, and doing 

pathway analyses. The reporting requirements of 32 CFR 218 were outlined. Doses are 

provided as reported by the DVA and the veteran. The veteran does not need to report a dose as 

a condition of filing an inquiry. 

Challenges encountered by the program over the years are related to: 

•	 Film badge data, necessary to mirror the values in the archival records. The weaknesses 

include variable use until 1956, film damage [in which case a dose reconstruction is done], 

and badge measurement of only external gamma doses. 

•	 Records reflect that improved radiation safety processes lowered the limits over the course 

of testing. Personnel and extensive monitoring data are used to report doses regardless of 

the practices or limits of the time. 

•	 Better science and dosimetry from dose reconstruction seem to conflict with public policy 

directions. The refined dose conversion factors produced after the NTPR was established 

indicated that the doses should be lowered. The 1990 NAS report provided bases for badge 

accuracy and uncertainty (.7), but that led to public perception that the NTPR lowered the 

doses, which reduced the possibility of successful claim outcomes. 

•	 Ultimately, the outcomes of early program redirection, which fostered a lack of public 

credibility, the public’s perception that science has failed to help in obtaining compensation, 

and greater emphasis by Congress to implement compensation schemes not based on 

science, led to a program decision elected to use the historic doses. However, if later 

science lowered the dose, they use it on a case-by-case basis. 

•	 Sporadic oversight of the program has been provided over time by the NAS (independently 

and as directed by Congress) and by the GAO. Both found the program’s doses to be 

accurate enough to support the intended compensation, but asked that an independent review 

process be established. DVA compensation regulations provide the benefit of the doubt to 

the veteran and consider high-end doses. The NTPR credibility estimates use the mean and 

upper-bound (95%) doses, and use the high-end dose alone if best-available data is 

provided. The goal is to err in favor of overestimating, rather than underestimating, veteran 

doses. 

•	 The program’s policy is that, if a worst case dose is still not high enough to be compensable, 

the investigation is dropped; but if the dose is very high and compensability is clear, the 

question is whether to do the extra work to generate an accurate radiation dose. But if that is 

6
 
the main content of the program, Dr. Schaeffer suspected that doing the epidemiology will 

be difficult or impossible. He advised the Board that they may need to sacrifice accuracy 

for efficiency. 

•	 Major issues identified by the NAS committee included whether the doses were right or fair. 

Recommendations were given on a permanent system of review. An expert review done 

was based on a sample of 99 of the NTPR’s dose reconstructions and of selected cases 

where veterans requested an NAS review of DTRA files. The results are to be released in 

April 2003. 

•	 The DVA compensation process is independent of the DTRA dose reconstruction; basically, 

it’s an interface without interaction. 

Discussion included: 

•	 The NAS review panel’s methodology and scope of work, protocols/procedures, etc. have 

not been released. Congress has asked them to do so. 

•	 The NTPR has not yet processed a claim in which they were unable to assign a dose. The 

special cohorts are formed according to congressionally mandated compensation for certain 

classes of diseases or other special categories. 

DVA Adjudication of Claims by Atomic Veterans 

Mr. Jerry Steele, of the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), the component of the DVA 

responsible for disability compensation, outlined the legal background and process used to 

compensate a radiation-exposed veteran or a survivor. The categories of exposure are: 1) 

participation in the military occupation of Nagasaki and Hiroshima prior to July 1, 1946; 2) 

participation in atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons; and 3) occupational exposure, such as to 

x-ray or incurred by nuclear weapons technicians or nuclear propulsion staff. Service records 

without a detailed dose are referred to the service’s dosimetry section. 

For those cases without presumed causation, DVA first determines that a specific disability is 

claimed and that it was not previously present, if not listed under Sec. 3.308 or 3.311 (b). If it is 

listed, DVA regional offices obtain the medical evidence of the claimed condition and verify 

from the DTRA the claimant’s participation in a radiation-risk activity from Hiroshima and 

Nagasaki exposure. As of Spring 2002, a total of 21,135 radiation compensation claims were 

received and 2582 were granted under a service connection. An additional 515 fell under PL 

100-321; of those, 333 were based on atomic testing and 182 were based on participation in the 

occupation of Japan. 

Determining PC for Atomic Veterans 

Dr. Neil Otchin, of DVA’s Office of Public Health and Environmental Hazards (OPHEH), part 

of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), reported how they establish the probability of 

causation (PC) for compensation claims. Upon request by the VBA, the OPHEH provides 

medical opinions to assist adjudication for some veterans’ claims. The DVA provides enhanced 

health care to veterans who participated in radiation-risk activities: ~195,000 veterans who 

occupied Hiroshima and Nagasaki, some former POWs with a similar likelihood of exposure to 

radiation, ~210,000 veterans who participated in atmospheric nuclear weapons tests, some 

7
 
veterans stationed at DOE facilities, and veterans who participated in Alaskan underground tests. 

A list of “presumptive” and “non-presumptive” diseases was provided. Adjudication of “nonpresumptive” cases requires a medical opinion on the PC of radiation for the claimed condition. 

If the veteran disagrees with the service’s estimated dose, s/he can submit an alternate dose 

estimate from a “credible source.” In the absence of monitoring data, the case is referred to an 

independent expert if the estimated doses (DTRA, service, other) differ by an order of 

magnitude. The DVA uses CIRRPC screening dose tables at the 99th percentile to assist in 

formulating their medical opinions. Other factors also considered include tissue sensitivity, 

gender, family history, age at exposure, etc. The use of the IREP is also being tested. 

Discussion included: 

•	 Few outside consultants unfamiliar with DOD could generate an alternate dose, and the cost 

also eliminates many veterans from doing so. Dr. Otchin has discussed asking the NIH to 

provide the names of people who could generate a “tie breaker” third dose opinion when 

needed, to provide veterans with another option. 

•	 The health physics experts consulted by DVA for dose development assistance are often 

themselves former military and are familiar with the site in question. 

•	 Outside physicians could conceivably declare cancers to be radiogenic, as allowed by the 

amended Section 311. For example, a claim for a pulmonary condition rather than a cancer 

would be sent to Dr. Otchin for a determination. 

•	 OPHEH is re-evaluating the policy of not using current models when they do not benefit the 

claimant, particularly looking toward the time when the IREP values have been formally 

reviewed by the NIH committee. 

Public Comment 

Mr. Richard Miller, of the Government Accountability Project (GAP) raised three topics. 

1.	 He raised again his concern about the potential conflict of interest among the relatively 

small group of contractors qualified to do dose reconstructions. GAP encourages the Board 

to provide guidance to NIOSH on this. GAP also encourages the Board to discuss with 

NIOSH what constitutes an appropriate level of disclosure to the claimant about the 

individuals performing the dose reconstructions. 

2.	 He noted that the Senate Appropriations Committee commended NIOSH for its work on this 

program, and that the Committee encouraged the CDC to allocate more staff to it. 

3.	 NIOSH has noted the seriousness of creating a class that prevents compensation for a 

different cancer than those listed under EEOICPA. The Rule needs to address how to 

approach non-SEC cancers. For example, he asked if any dose received outside the 

time/space parameters of an SEC could be considered, and could the SEC dose be applied to 

other claims? He suggested that NIOSH staff should develop a paper on options with which 

to deal with this for the Board’s or the SEC Workgroup’s review. He noted that such 

questions will apply whenever any SEC does not cover the entire history of a facility. 

Dr. Melius asked that the next meeting agenda include discussion of conflict of interest if the 

dose reconstruction contract is awarded by then. Dr. Anderson asked if the dose reconstruction 

8
 
will be anonymous, or if the claimant will know who developed it, to determine for themselves 

any conflict of interest. Mr. Elliott responded that the dose reconstruction report will include the 

name of the reviewer and the peer reviewer, but the report is a NIOSH product and only NIOSH 

is accountable. He assured the Board that conflict of interest is being addressed in the contract 

negotiations as a key component. 

Mr. Joseph Carson was a DOE safety inspector and self-described whistle blower who reviewed 

the safety of DOE reactors after the Chernobyl event. He stated his concern that DOE was and 

remains very dependent on support service contractors. He investigated serious accidents at Oak 

Ridge, none of which ever had any verification of corrective action. That non-response led to 

staff failure to report events. He became a whistle blower 10 years ago and is still battling DOE. 

He charged that DOE considers its employees expendable, citing a 1984 fire which contaminated 

an area that he had cited for safety violations which were not mentioned in the final report. He 

defined this lack of regard and lapse of safety professionals’ standards as a health and safety 

problem of national scale. They are being investigated, but no one is investigating the lapses in 

ethics codes and regulation implementation by safety professionals that caused worker injuries 

and illnesses in the DOE complex. He charged that DOE is attempting to discredit him to take 

the focus off the real issues. 

He stated that the reports of the safety professionals cannot be trusted, and they bear on 

determination of claims. He challenged DOE and the Board to acknowledge the possibility that 

the DOE health physicists’ and safety professionals’ code of ethics has broken down, to 

investigate the cited fire to check his veracity, to investigate whether DOE’s discretionary 

function has allowed them to suppress damaging information, and to pursue the issues of conflict 

of interest, including its applicability to professional ethics. 

In discussion, he reported that his site’s data safety records were erased three times and had to be 

replaced, another fact not recorded. He cited “midnight negatives,” for example, which he 

described as emissions released at night that could not be seen and that were not kept track of. 

He questioned the completeness and accuracy of the DOE’s records and challenged the Board to 

determine whether the technicians were subject to a bias to record data at less than reality. In his 

opinion, all the Oak Ridge data should be suspect. 

Ms. Gadola stated that she has also expressed concerns about changing safety records and 

reporting practices in private industry. She appreciated his comments, noting that the more light 

that’s shed on the whole picture, the sooner we can get more truthful information. 

With no further comment, the meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m. and reconvened on the following 

morning at 8:32 a.m. 

August 15, 2002 

Discussion of Comments on the SEC Rule 

Dr. Ziemer summarized the comments made on the SEC Rule by himself, Ms. Munn, Ms. 

9
 
Gadola, Dr. Anderson, and Dr. Andrade. 

•	 §83.1: Insert text that NIOSH will be diligent in identifying/assisting claimants who may 

qualify for a new class. 

•	 §83.2: Insert as “b” that the SEC process is not to be used as a route of appeal for a denied 

claim. 

•	 §83.5(c): Add the phrase “during similar time periods” after “at the same DOE or AWE 

facility.” 

•	 §83.7: Clarify that NIOSH cannot/will not submit the petition itself. 

•	 §83.10: Clarify that NIOSH is involved early in these processes, not the ABRWH; and that 

NIOSH will present petitions selected for evaluation, together with its evaluation plans, to 

the Board for review. 

•	 §83.13: Clarify that the Board’s role is advisory, not adjudicatory. 

•	 §83.14: Specify that “other procedures” that might be used in the future must not be in 

conflict with those already established in the Rule. 

Other comments by Dr. Melius were: 

•	 It appears as worded that the petitioner must go through the dose reconstruction process 

before the group can be formed. Place more emphasis on the group petitioning process for 

SEC status. 

•	 No parameters are presented for evaluating when data are inadequate to do a dose 

reconstruction with sufficient accuracy. Develop guidelines for determining when an 

adequate dose reconstruction cannot be completed and put those guidelines out for public 

comment. 

•	 The petitioning process places too much burden on applicants to prove that data is 

inadequate for dose reconstruction. Simplify the process to encourage more applications; 

this will ultimately streamline the claims process. 

•	 Include a time limit during which individual dose reconstructions are done. If not done in 

that time and the claimant meets the other criteria, award the claim. 

Discussion included: 

•	 Cases of the deceased workers also will require review to put them in a group on behalf of 

the survivors. 

•	 Emphasize to the public that the options are balanced between petitioning as a group or 

individually, and either way, specify how NIOSH can help that along. 

•	 “Sufficient accuracy” needs to be quantitatively defined (e.g., if all or a percentage of TLD 

or film data is available for the class AND bioassay for relevant radionuclides AND data are 

consistent with knowledge of site processes AND NIOSH could complete the dose 

reconstruction). 

•	 However, “accuracy” is not the main goal for compensation; these are not epidemiologic 

studies. A definition of “sufficient” or “insufficient” accuracy is needed to ensure program 

consistency, the fairness of this process and to allow any appeal judge to assess that, and to 

enable the Board’s review. 

•	 On the other hand, one cannot prove a negative (i.e., there is no more information). The 

10
 
Rule already has NIOSH making every effort to work to the benefit of the claimant. It may 

be impossible to craft language to provide adequate guidelines without unduly burdening the 

agency and the petitioner. But perhaps examples could be provided of why a dose 

reconstruction cannot be done (e.g., missing data, no supplementary coworker data that are 

useful to estimate external dose.) 

•	 The line is not defined between when NIOSH can calculate a dose for a potential class to 

compare that to the level of endangerment, but cannot do so for an individual through a dose 

reconstruction. 

NIOSH’s response was that it first determines the benchmark of the health endangerment 

dose and asks health physicists if the dose could have reached that mark or higher. The 

whole DOE experience can be drawn upon to assess that possibility, and the determination 

is also reviewed by the panel, this Board, the public and others. Even if sites primarily 

handled one element (e.g., plutonium), NIOSH will explore and identify all possible source 

terms. The example of the neutron dose was cited; it was not monitored, but if present, 

could have pushed a group over a 50% PC. 

•	 However, it was pointed out that the premise for this SEC group is that NIOSH does not 

have all the information, which prevents a dose reconstruction. And while the 

endangerment review of groups will come to this Board, it will not for individual claims. 

Guidelines are needed on how the different categories will be assigned according to the 

available or missing information, while maintaining sufficient flexibility to handle 

circumstances not considered in advance. 

•	 IREP may be another way to handle this problem; it is now in the background. 

Dr. Melius also recommended a Board statement that the MOU with DOE must be in place to 

ensure that exposure records be made readily available to enable the dose reconstructions to be 

done in a timely and fair fashion. Dr. Ziemer suggested separating this comment from those on 

the Rulemaking. Ms. Munn moved that the ABRWH write the Secretary a separate letter 

urging completion of the MOU as soon as possible. Dr. DeHart seconded the motion. This 

was supported in discussion, with added suggestions to specify the “timely availability of 

complete exposure records”; to note that the records across the DOE complex are of value not 

only to epidemiologic study but also to compensation, and to reiterate the need to retain them. 

Mr. Griffon also suggested asking for the timely release of DOE and Atomic Weapons Facility 

records, to ensure that NIOSH does not have to retrieve them, even though this is already 

covered in DOE’s umbrella responsibility. Ms. Munn agreed to draft the latter with Dr. Melius’ 

help. 

Vote: A voice vote passed the motion unanimously with no abstentions. 

Mr. Griffon offered several more comments and raised several questions on the Rule: 

•	 Clarify that there is no barrier to an individual in a class in applying for other compensation. 

DOL will send to NIOSH any claim for a non-SEC cancer. 

•	 Can doses be added to an individual dose reconstruction to determine PC for non-SEC list 

cancers? This has not yet been encountered and is not yet answered. One option is to again 

estimate if a dose could have exceeded a benchmark. NIOSH will need to consider that 

11
 
situation, and will need the advice of the Board. 

•	 Can reconstructable doses outside the class definition be included? Not exposures outside 

the time period of the class, the way the regulation is now written. But since all the class 

members have to have a common exposure to be considered as a class, they could perhaps 

be included. Perhaps a class definition criterion could be an additional exposure, including 

periods of adequate as well as inadequate records, with everyone in the class having to meet 

both criteria. 

•	 The definition of “endangered health” needs to maintain the intent of the original Act’s 

language. It may be better measured qualitatively. NIOSH explained that, for example, 

workers not badged or exposed at too-low levels can be assigned an upper limit of exposure, 

and the risk to one unknown worker can be extended to the whole cohort. The check for 

health endangerment would be simply their presence. While the dose cannot be 

reconstructed, it can be upper-bounded in a reasonable way for those likely exposed. 

•	 However, it was also noted that unmonitored material does not necessarily endanger health 

and that the Rule already defines health endangerment. 

•	 The rejoinder pointed out the problem that the elegant IREP model’s accounting for 

uncertainty implies some amount of accuracy, even though a “flimsy estimate based on 

weak data” will be plugged into that. 

•	 One Board recommendation could be that NIOSH ensure they have not precluded other 

options. Some situations require flexibility; we should not become too proscriptive. 

Town Hall Meeting Comments on the Rule 

Mr. Elliott announced that the transcripts of the last two town hall meetings should be on the 

Web site early the following week. Mr. Katz outlined the comments and questions gathered at 

the town hall meetings. Common questions were: 

•	 “Why didn’t Congress include us in the cohort; why is the burden of proof higher for us? 

We worked with same radioactive materials as employees at the GDPs, and our exposures 

may have been higher than theirs.” 

•	 “Why is cancer the only covered illness related to radioactive materials?” 

•	 “Why aren’t all toxic exposures covered, such as from non-ionizing radiation and chemical 

exposures?” 

•	 “Why aren’t employees of atomic weapons employers (AWE) who worked during periods 

of residual contamination covered?” 

•	 “How long will it take to: 1) do a dose reconstruction or 2) to determine it cannot be done, 

3) get contractor support for dose reconstructions, and 4) decide the outcome of the 

petition?” Concern also was expressed about the delay due to the congressional review 

period, as was anger about duration of all procedures. 

•	 “What is a class, how is it defined, what is its size? Can it be a whole facility?” Many 

believed that their facility should be added as a class. 

•	 “Can members of a class opt out when the class is added?” (It was explained that other 

cancers will come to NIOSH anyway.) 

•	 “Can a claimant withdraw a claim before adjudication is final and submit a petition?” (It 

was explained that the procedures do not preclude claimants, at any point, from doing that.) 

•	 “Why does a claimant have to petition if NIOSH can’t do a dose reconstruction? Why not 

12
 
just evaluate a class?” (It was answered that the law requires a petition to start the process.) 

• “Why are the SEC procedures so complicated?” 

• “How will NIOSH reconstruct the doses?” 

Attendance in Buffalo and in Ohio was under 20, due to little lead time from the published 

meeting announcement. But there was much better turnout at the meetings in the west. Hanford 

drew ~350 people and about 50-60 came in Española, NM. In Buffalo, the employees seemed to 

have even less information than at other sites and a lot of frustration was evident. 

Mr. Griffon asked the status of the residual contamination study. Mr. Elliott reported that its sixmonth progress report was currently in inter-department clearance and would shortly be sent to 

the Hill. 

Dose Reconstruction Workgroup Report 

Mr. Griffon reviewed Version 2.0 of the review process framework developed by the 

Workgroup. 

Independent panel: Additions to Version 1.0 noted that two Board members (perhaps on a 

rotating basis, not the same ones each time) and one expert would comprise a panel team. Three 

to four subgroups could be meeting concurrently (e.g., with 30 dose reconstructions, a team 

could have 5 of the 30 to review). The review panel will meet prior to the ABRWH meeting to 

reduce the travel burden. The independent expert will do the bulk of the work and provide a 

preliminary reading to the two Board members. The panel will then recommend to the Board for 

its approval the next day, as well as any particulars the Board should review as well. The team 

could also remand the case back to the expert for further examination. 

Dr. Ziemer emphasized that the Board does not approve the dose reconstructions, per se; this is 

only a quality control audit. In many cases, the decision will have been made and the 

compensation paid. But if it appears that there is a systemic issue with the dose reconstructions 

that the Board recommends NIOSH change, then NIOSH and DOL would review that and decide 

how to address the issue. 

Case selection. Additions to Version 1.0 included that sampling would be done along the strata 

of NIOSH’s efficiency process categories, as well as by time period and diversity. A sample size 

of about 2-3% of total claims would be appropriate, and this would also be consistent with the 

DTRA approach. These could be selected on a quarterly basis by the Workgroup, but the cases 

will be continually tracked to ensure that a representative sample is achieved. 

The Board suggested adding to the “diversity” (gender, race, ethnic issues, etc.) the type of work 

and the claimant’s level of involvement in it. In response, it was hoped that the site selection 

would address that, while these criteria address the individual level. Also recommended was the 

addition of language to clarify that the deleted language concerning claims awarded, claims 

denied, or doses not reconstructable should be captured through the NIOSH efficiency strata. 

13
 
Mr. Elliott suggested a weighting other than by the number of claims or by site. For example, 1) 

considering a category of compensation or denial; with the heaviest weight placed on the middle 

category; and 2) adding a sentence that these selection criteria can be changed in response to a 

different mix desired (e.g., “and other criteria that may arise . . . ,” as long as it is not too vague.) 

Scope/protocol. Version 2.0 added a protocol on how to conduct the dose reconstruction 

reviews; basic, comprehensive, and, possibly, a small number in a “blind” review category. The 

latter would not show the NIOSH determination; NIOSH would provide the administrative 

record used to calculate individual dose and the panel then would reconstruct the dose and 

generate the IREP inputs, rather than being provided those up front. 

Mr. Griffon explained that the main difference between basic and advanced dose reconstruction 

reviews is that the latter reviews the entire administrative record while the basic one only 

reviews the records NIOSH used for the dose reconstruction. The comprehensive review also 

assesses the consistency of the dose estimate to relevant radiologic information within the 

NIOSH site profile, and compares case information and assumptions with relevant coworker case 

information and assumptions for consistency. All reviews are then reported to the Board. 

Discussion included compliments to the Workgroup on its product, and the following: 

•	 A credibility issue involved in the information not included/considered in the review arises 

in this approach of just a records review. Interviews of site personnel/experts to explore 

any other missing information could help to ascertain how complete NIOSH’s site profiles 

are and ensure that all relevant information is considered. That is a good idea but not 

practical to implement. This also would necessitate auditing the data gathered, not an 

appropriate task for the dose reconstruction Workgroup. 

•	 Ways to develop a comfort level about the information used in the site profiles were 

suggested: 

< Ensure that NIOSH has the necessary resources to develop them (e.g., with panel experts 

and staff on each site). However, caution on expanding this activity was advised, as 

investigative work site audits will complicate/delay the process. It should not be part of 

the Board’s inherent process. At the least, however, a list of such sources for each site 

could be made available to the contractor to explore any gaps in information. 

<	 Place the material in hand on the Website for individuals to comment and perhaps add 

information not in the official record. In view of sketchy profiles, the opinion was 

expressed that this is an important option to consider, as well as other ways to confirm 

that information within the restraints of resources and time. In the future, when profiles 

are more complete, that input may be less important. 

•	 Dr. Andrade noted that the site profiles will emerge from: 1) the dose reconstruction and 

claimant interviews; 2) documented accidents; and 3) development in recent years of 

incident databases, which include updates or intakes of radioactive material. Such diverse 

sources of data will have to be recognized in the profiles’ development. 

•	 Dr. Neton followed up on Dr. Andrade’s comments by noting that a site profile is dynamic 

in nature. The present ones have such basic information as the frequency of the badge 

exchange, but the more complex cases will require more. Expansion of four classes of site 

14
 
profile information is underway: characterization of the internal monitoring program, the 

external monitoring program, the medical radiation monitoring program, and the 

environmental monitoring program. Although dose reconstructions can be done even with 

limited site profiles, the site histories of processes, air sampling, environmental survey data, 

etc., could eventually supplement our claim information. The contractor will devote a group 

to exclusively address these profiles immediately, since they will aid the individual dose 

reconstructions. 

Public Comment 

Mr. Jerry Tudor, of Clinton, TN, is a member of the United Sick Oppressed Laborers (USOL) 

and the Coalition for a Healthy Environment (CHE.) Mr. Tudor, who suffers from prostate 

cancer, stated that he met with congressional aides in Oak Ridge on the previous day about this 

program. He found the amount of time necessary to form an SEC to be “ridiculous” at 180 days 

plus 200 days for congressional action. Many are already sick and people are upset with such 

delays. He was disturbed by the comment recorded in the minutes of the July conference call 

that the majority of claims will be denied, since no dose reconstructions had even been done. He 

noted that the occupational exposures of different workers at one site are not necessarily 

comparable, since exposures could differ between people even in the same room. Based on his 

work at Y-12, he is sure that the records there are inadequate; he stated that a worker’s time was 

clocked to whatever program had sufficient funds, regardless of what the worker’s actual job 

duties were. 

Mr. Bruce Lawson, of Oliver Springs, TN, is with the PACE Medical Screening program. Mr. 

Lawson worked at the Oak Ridge K-25 site for more than 30 years, and for the last 9 years of his 

tenure there he served as the union’s health and safety representative. He stated that he 

witnessed firsthand what Mr. Carson alluded to regarding the inaccuracy of records. He saw 

health physicists, industrial hygienists, and health and safety staff rewrite records and redo 

reports under only minimal pressure from superiors. The staff was under the onus to clean up 

reports before DOE even saw them. Mr. Lawson now works with the medical screening 

program, which is often the first point of contact for the EEOICPA program, where they daily 

hear the comments made at the recent OCAS public meetings. Many claimants’ survivors are 

virtually illiterate and know little or nothing about their spouse’s work, or even what plant they 

worked in, and many cannot get their records from the plant, doctors, or hospitals. As an 

example, a woman subsisting on Social Security requested her records, but was told she would 

be charged $300 for them. Since she couldn’t afford the fee, she left without them. The 

screening program finally persuaded them to provide the records to her at no charge. Others, 

whose records were reportedly lost, just gave up. The workers are very wary of the program and 

suspect that far more worthy claimants will not be compensated. The “word at Oak Ridge is if 

you didn’t work at K-25, you can forget it,” he said. The entire process is the subject of very 

negative word of mouth. He applauded this Board’s process and encouraged the members to 

proceed quickly. And, although the Board is bound to consider only radiation, he noted that 

most workers were exposed to greater hazards from chemicals than from radiation. Finally, he 

stated that claimants are definitely deserving of compensation, and he urged the Board to not 

hesitate to push a claim along. 

15
 
Discussion included: 

•	 Can the workers in general provide information for missing records? Not in every case, 

and the “experts” are the men/women out in the field every day. However, the union did a 

risk mapping of the site that could provide a lot of information, a project Mr. Griffon was 

involved in that used the medical surveillance information. The risk mapping included 

interviews with the workers themselves. 

•	 Records access is complex. One principal investigator, Eula Bingham, of the University of 

Cincinnati Department of Medicine, acceded to workers requests to not provide their data to 

DOE, except in de-identified form. This supports the notion that some data can be provided 

by each of the surveillance projects and not by DOE. DOE owns only the monitoring data 

used by the investigators, and that is protected from release under the Privacy Act. Mr. 

Griffon noted that, alongside the union’s sharing with NIOSH some of the institutional 

history of the processes, DOE’s summary reports and the needs assessments done prior to 

the work could also add to the site profiles’ development. 

Mr. Elliott reported NIOSH’s work with several such principal investigators and, in some 

specific situations, with the Center for the Protection of Worker Rights to procure 

construction workers’ work history data from 5 sites’ different programs. Any worker at 

those study sites can get their individual information back and submit it as part of the claim. 

Mr. Robert G. Tabor, of the Fernald site’s Atomic Trades and Labor Council, appreciated the 

appointment of the new Board members. He supported the comments made on how to address 

non-SEC cancers. Since Fernald is not a designated site, those workers now have to explore 

their SEC status. They are concerned about the equity issues inherent in the fact that the 

Rulemaking/guidelines for the original cohort groups differ from those of any subsequent 

additions. Related to that are the issues of endangered health raised at this meeting. He asked, 

and had confirmed, that more than exposure records are collected, and that where one worked in 

an operation or job function does bear on the dose reconstruction. The latter issue pertains to the 

records retention, especially those sites scheduled for closure in the near future. He was unsure 

that DOE had developed good guidelines on what should be done with those records, and hoped 

that the Board’s letter to the Secretary about the MOU will recommend a reimposition of the 

records moratorium. 

Mr. Elliott stated that the moratorium on destruction of the ~27 records systems (process records, 

historical practice changes, medical records, etc.) defined as suitable for epidemiological studies 

of exposure associated with health outcome, is still in place and protected. NIOSH is also 

concerned, however, about ensuring that the records of closed sites are properly stored and 

traceable. 

Mr. Mark Lewis, of Waverly, OH, is with PACE and coordinates the worker health protection 

program in Piketon, OH. Mr. Lewis agreed, from personal experience, to the wisdom of using 

the workers’ expertise and memory to fill in data gaps. He once requested his own onsite 

records regarding an acute exposure to high grade weapons material, but was told that no records 

existed. 

16
 
Discussion of the SEC Rule 

Dr. Ziemer noted that the deadline for comments on the Rule is August 26 and summarized those 

proposed by the Board to this point (see page 9). 

Discussion of Dr. Melius’ recommendations included the following: 

•	 Reformat the preamble with descriptive information for each section and add language to 

state, for example, that “NIOSH should emphasize the group petitioning process (as opposed 

to individual petitions) and explain/describe the possible types of groups that might consider 

petitioning, such as groups of workers with undocumented exposures at a facility.” Dr. 

Andrade suggested changing “as opposed to” to “vis a vis” or something similar to balance 

the two types of petitions. 

•	 Add wording to Section E (Federal Register page 42963) to define “insufficient 

information” as “incomplete information on source, processes, practices, or source terms.” 

Specifying more than that (e.g., the availability of one or 7 film badge readings) was thought 

to be inadvisable. This would allow sufficient flexibility and avoid being overly 

prescriptive to those doing the work, but still identify for claimants the information desired. 

Mr. Griffon’s comments were addressed as follows: 

•	 “Endangered health” now relies on the estimate of potential dose. Ms. Munn thought the 

statute’s definition to be sufficient. The “reasonable likelihood” that the cancer may be 

radiation induced can be determined from short-term radiation health effects for other class 

members, description of shortcomings of radiation protection measures, etc. This could be 

operationalized, as other cohorts were, based on duration of exposure and monitoring status. 

•	 Opinions differed on whether different criteria than those used for dose reconstruction 

should be adopted. Mr. Griffon found it illogical to say a dose reconstruction cannot be 

done if the endangerment is based on the conduct of another “dose reconstruction” of some 

sort. He posed an example of people who were monitored despite little likelihood that they 

were exposed and who may be inappropriately incorporated to the cohort. Using the IREP 

approach will also be counterintuitive to claimants to hear that data are insufficient to do an 

individual dose reconstruction, but enough for a group estimate that still disqualifies 

everyone. 

•	 Dr. DeHart noted that those who believe in linear effects will say that any exposure is a 

danger to health. Mr. Elliott replied that NIOSH included this as a test of reasonableness, to 

provide the dose necessary to endanger health and achieve parity with those for whom a 

dose reconstruction could be done. 

•	 Dr. Andrade suggested tying the definition to new information about an exposure event that 

could cause the new dose to be added to the IREP analysis done for an incomplete dose 

reconstruction. Such new information could relate to site processes and unexpected 

exposures, or for an old facility, the poor or absent monitoring or records. But it remains 

problematic, in the latter case, of using a “wild guess” in the calculation or risking the 

inclusion of trivial or non-exposure cases, without some arbitrary cutoff. 

•	 One alternative definition, offered by Dr. Melius, could be a situation in which NIOSH 

cannot do a dose reconstruction with sufficient accuracy and the person worked in a facility 

for one year in an area where they were or should have been monitored, fleshed out by a 

17
 
definition of “monitored.“ 

•	 Mr. Griffon noted that NIOSH’s definition of “sufficient accuracy” is that they can do an 

individual dose reconstruction. The low/low internal/external dose cases in the efficiency 

will be tested against IREP using a worst case scenario, and will drop out at the first hurdle. 

The question is, should the data left be used to generate a worst case estimate to compare 

against IREP for the class, or should there be another set of criteria similar to that of the 

SEC? Would the efficiency process prevent the inequity of including a person with 

insignificant doses into the class? 

•	 How can the review panels evaluate the appropriateness of NIOSH’s “guesstimate” and 

ensure that it stays consistent and fair between cases. This is particularly important in 

dealing with very different situations such as workers in labs versus those in production 

facilities. 

•	 Richard Miller stated that the one-year threshold of the original cohort was based on the 

RECA model, which uses a working month to determine compensability (i.e., time/duration 

in the mines or mills). It was noted that this may be applicable to radon exposure, but not 

others. Any specification of time or any parameter will infer that there is a point of 

endangerment. 

Dr. Ziemer posed the question of whether NIOSH’s method is reasonable. Concerns expressed 

included that: 

•	 The current Rule method is counterintuitive, posing a problem to claimants, and the current 

arbitrary manner of selecting dose poses problems to the applicant and reviewer as to how it 

is being applied. The advantage of using a time frame is understandable, transparent, and 

easily applied. Although it may be counterintuitive as well, it is reasonable and parallels the 

250 days specified in the legislation. However, are there better ways to do it? 

•	 NIOSH’s response was that some class members might not meet the 250 day cutoff. But 

clearly a better articulation is needed that the class brought forward for the Board’s review 

would establish the time frame that would support the test for endangerment of health, and is 

appropriate for a given situation of a class experience. Perhaps a mockup of a class 

definition could be provided. And the number used is not arbitrary; rather, IREP will 

indicate the radionuclide of most concern (from the demographics of the class) and where 

the 50% PC lies. 

•	 Dr. Melius noted that there are not likely many with exposure <250 days where a dose 

reconstruction cannot be done adequately to pass this test, although a few false negatives 

could occur. NIOSH needs to clearly define how the dose reconstruction is done, the 

criteria governing when it cannot be done, and how this applies in different situations. 

Without such criteria, this discussion is taking place in a vacuum. 

• Suggestions offered were as follow: 

< Criteria: The Board should recommendation that NIOSH develop a set of guidelines for 

how they will determine when a dose reconstruction cannot be done (using the 

regulation’s language), present it to the Board for review, and state in the preamble that 

such guidelines exist. 

<	 Endangerment: Explain in a letter to the Secretary that Board members have concerns 

about the definition/approach by NIOSH, and could suggest alternative approaches, one 

18
 
of which (time period) was discussed. Reference the definitions used in the statute. Dr. 

Melius agreed to work with Mr. Griffon to draft a letter. 

•	 “Proving the negative” when no records confirmation is received. Reported responses vary 

from site to site. The Rule’s intent was to allow people to take information off the shelf, not 

that they would hire an expert to do a records search. Language should be included that a 

demonstrated good faith effort to get records will suffice. 

•	 NIOSH should re-emphasize the original DOE memo about records retention; NIOSH 

agreed to determine when it was issued and reference it. 

•	 The Board agreed to specify concern that classes of employees not be defined in such as 

way as to preclude non-SEC listed cancers. NIOSH will look through the Rule to see where 

that applies. This will be a general comment not applied to a specific section. 

The Board agreed to hold a conference call to approve the revised language. The call was to be 

announced early the following week in the Federal Register. 

Use of an Interim Final Rule 

The Board discussed whether there would be any advantage to making this an Interim Final 

Rule, since new information could answer remaining questions as to health endangerment, 

working with insufficient information, and non-SEC cancer issues. Mr. Katz responded that an 

interim Rule would allow NIOSH to operate and address petitions and still make moderate 

changes with another public comment period. But a Final Rule only allows minor technical 

adjustments to be effected (e.g., inserting a missing decimal point or an agency name change). 

Any changes must be such that the public can see how they came about, and another Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking would have to be issued while the program continued to operate under the 

existing final Rule. 

The Interim Rule seemed useful to some Board members, at least for the early part of the 

process. This would allow some non-major changes to be made without requiring a new 

Rulemaking process, while still allowing the work to go forward. But lingering concern was 

expressed about expending time and work to clearly delineate something that may never be 

clear. And the Secretary may decide not to make a final class petition decision until there is a 

Final Rule. The Board has addressed this issue by advising the generation of operational 

guidelines, which could handle most changes. Also noted was the public perception of an 

interim Rule, which could infer that the system is not yet ready and may affect how the claims 

are handled. 

Dr. Andrade moved to vote on whether the Rule should go forward with the recommendations 

sent to the Secretary that were adopted on this day, and addressing the two remaining issues in 

the guidelines or preamble to go forward. However, since the final wording was not yet decided, 

he changed his motion and move to pursue an Interim Final Rule. Ms. Munn seconded the 

motion. 

Dr. Andrade proposed a stepped process to continue this discussion such that, if the Board finds 

value added in an Interim Final Rule, the planned teleconference can include discussion of the 

19
 
final language for the Final Rule to be placed in the preamble or the body itself, perhaps with a 

clearer definition, and address these last two issues. Dr. Ziemer called for a vote on whether to 

include consideration of an Interim Final Rule in the recommendation to the Secretary, with a no 

vote equating to no interim Rule. 

Vote: Four members voted in favor and four were opposed the motion. The Chair voted against 

it and the motion did not carry. Dr. Melius agreed to develop wording to be discussed again at 

the teleconference. 

Closing Comments 

Dr. Ziemer reported for the record a concern raised by a member of the public in an e-mail to 

him about whether NIOSH has sufficient staffing to handle their workload. The Board was in 

general agreement that NIOSH may not be adequately staffed to do its work. Since this may not 

be an appropriate concern to advance to the Secretary until the contractor is in place, an action 

item to ensure OCAS’ staff sufficiency was made. NIOSH was requested, at the next meeting, to 

include in the agenda an update on the contract’s award, how it will be handled, the status of the 

claims process, and the status of staff to handle this in future. 

The Board agreed to hold the next meeting on October 15-16 in Santa Fe, NM. 

A last Public Comment was offered by Mr. Tabor. He urged the Board to strive to do the right 

thing right the first time, and for the right reasons. If the framework for the process is not “clear 

and clean,” and if additional time is required, including for a public comment period, he advised 

not beginning it until everything is ready. 

With no further comment, the meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. 

I hereby confirm that these Minutes are accurate to the best of my knowledge. 

/s/ 

Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D., Chair 

October 31, 2002 

Date 

20
 
ATTACHMENTS
 

21
 
 

 

Attachment #1 

Draft Agenda
 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health
 

Hyatt Regency Cincinnati
 

151 West Fifth Street
 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
 

(513) 579-1234
 

August 14-15, 2002
 

Wednesday - August 14, 2002 

12:30 p.m. - 1:00 p.m. Registration and Welcome Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chair 

Mr. Larry Elliott, Executive Secretary 

1:00 p.m. - 1:15 p.m. Review and Approval of 

Draft Minutes Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chair 

1:15 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.	 Review of Action Items Mr. Larry Elliott, Executive Secretary 

1:30 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.	 Dose Reconstruction Mr. Mark Griffon, Workgroup Chair 

Workgroup Report 

2:30 p.m. - 2:45 p.m.	 Break 

2:45 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.	 Adjudication of Claims Mr. Jerry Steele, Department of 

– Atomic Veterans Veterans Affairs 

3:30 p.m. - 4:15 p.m.	 Dose Reconstruction - Mr. Michael Schaeffer, Defense 

Atomic Veterans Threat Reduction Agency 

4:15 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.	 Probability of Causation - Dr. Neil Otchin, Department of 

Determination for Atomic Veterans Affairs 

Veterans 

5:00 p.m.- 5:30 p.m. Public Comment Period 

5:30 p.m.	 Adjourn 

***Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.*** 

22
 
 

 

 

 

Draft Agenda
 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health
 

Hyatt Regency Cincinnati
 

151 West Fifth Street
 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
 

(513) 579-1234
 

August 14-15, 2002
 

Thursday - August 15, 2002 

8:00 a.m. - 8:30 a.m.	 Registration and Welcome Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chair 

Mr. Larry Elliott, Executive Secretary 

8:30 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.	 Board Discussion ­

 Special Exposure Cohort NPRM Comments on the Rule 

10:00 a.m. -10:15 a.m. Break 

10:15 a.m. - 11:45 a.m.	 Board Discussion -

 Process to Review Completed Dose Reconstructions 

11:45 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.	 Public Comment Period and/or Board Discussion 

12:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.	 Lunch 

1:30 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.	 Board Discussion - 

 Special Exposure Cohort NPRM Comments on the Rule 

2:30 p.m. - 2:45 p.m.	 Break 

2:45 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.	 Board Discussion - 

4:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.	 Administrative Housekeeping Ms. Cori Homer, NIOSH

 and Board Work Schedule Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chair 

Mr. Larry Elliott, Executive 

Secretary 

4:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.	 Public Comment Period 

5:00 p.m.	 Adjourn 

***Agenda Items are subject to change as priorities dictate.*** 

23
 
Attachment #2
 

NIOSH/ABRWH Action and Topic Items
 

Meeting/ 

Date 

NIOSH Action/Topic Item(s) Status 

Meeting 2 

2/02 

1. Experts to present (action needed by Board members: 

clarify whom, on what? 

Clarified at 5/02 

meeting. 

COMPLETED 

2. Provide program history/background, particularly as 

applied to the SEC 

Dr. Michaels presented 

5/02. 

COMPLETED 

3. Discuss IREP issues. 5/02 Dr. Lamb 

presented; further list 

developed. 

COMPLETED 

Meeting 4 

5/02 

1. The next meeting was scheduled for July 1-2, 2002. Meeting held 7/1-2 

/2002 

COMPLETED 

2. Add, to the beginning of past minutes and to future 

minutes, that “A court reporter transcribed the 

deliberations of the Board and a complete transcript is 

available on the Internet.” 

Done as of the May 

2002 minutes. 

ON-GOING

3. Maintain a “to do” list of meeting topics. Begun 5/02/2002 

ON-GOING

4. E-mail members of Website documents postings. Begun 5/02/2002 

ON-GOING

5. Present the state of the art on synergistic effects. 

6. Provide copies of the technical reviewers' comments. COMPLETED 6/02 

7. Provide name/affiliation of commenting responders. COMPLETED 6/02 

8. Provide more IREP model details to the Board, including 

raw data. 

SENES presentation 

7/02; August work 

scheduled -

ON-GOING

24
 
Meeting/ 

Date 

NIOSH Action/Topic Item(s) Status 

Meeting 4 

5/02 

9. Present the questions and opinions about, or what else 

the experts and NCI would like IREP to include 

10. Overview presentation by the Office of General Counsel 

(OGC) of what ABRWH can and cannot tell the 

claimants. 

Member’s advisement 

complete at the time of 

appointment. 

COMPLETE 

Board presentation at 

October meeting. 

Pending 10/02 

11. Explain the records request process; will the dose 

reconstruction contractor have direct access on site? 

How will the kinds of records that are relevant be 

decided, and how will they be pursued? 

12. Address access to information from DOE sites: 

* If no MOU by next meeting, update status of 

information needed/received, etc.; the extent work 

required by NIOSH to get the information available, etc. 

* When MOU is in place, discuss records missing or 

unavailable; how far NIOSH should go into the search; 

how the applicant will be assured that the search was 

complete. 

Reported 8/02 

Pending 

13. Describe what criteria determine that information is 

insufficient to award a claim. 

14. Identify research gaps and how this Board can help fill 

them. 

15. Present the plans to publish this process as well as 

results such as number of cancers identified. Can 

results also be analyzed by site or geographic area? 

Meeting 5 

7/02 

1. Public input meetings on the SEC Rule will be held the 

week of July 23-25 in Amhurst, New York and in 

Cincinnati; and during the week of August 5 in Richland, 

WA and Espanola NM. 

COMPLETED AND 

REPORTED AT 8/13-14 

MEETING 

25
 
Meeting/ 

Date 

NIOSH Action/Topic Item(s) Status 

Meeting 5 

7/02 

2. ABRWH Meeting schedules: 

August: Dose Reconstruction Working Group, in 

Cincinnati, 8/13-14 (half day); Board: 8/14 (half day) and 

15. Agenda: finalization of the SEC rule comments, 

perhaps input on the oversight of dose reconstructions. 

Outside speaker: DTRA (VA) on the afternoon of 8/14. 

October 15-16; alternate date is November 18-19. 

Meeting held 8/13-

14/2002 

COMPLETED 

Meeting scheduled for 

10/15-16/2002 

Pending 

3. The OGC will look at the SEC rule text regarding public 

presentations of testimony and evidence to ensure the 

ABRWH meeting does not turn into a hearing. 

Meeting 6 

8/15 

1. Next meeting: 10/15-16 in Santa Fe, NM. Agenda 

should include an update on the contract awarded, how 

it will be handled (including conflict of interest), status of 

the claims process, and status of NIOSH staff to handle 

this in future. 

Pending 10/2 meeting 

2. Provide a mockup of a class definition. 

Meeting/ 

Date 

ABRWH Action Items Status 

Meeting 2 

2/02 

1. Discuss the statutes/language regarding ABRWH future 

role; it is vague if not misleading. 

Clarification needed for 

NIOSH 

Meeting 4 

5/02 

1. Comment on the public’s perception of the misleading 

character of the Sense of the Congress statement. 

COMPLETED 7/02 

2. Discuss how ABRWH will review the quality of the dose 

reconstructions. 

Begun at 7/02 meeting 

ON-GOING

26
 
Meeting/ 

Date 

ABRWH Action Items Status 

Meeting 4 

5/02 

3. Discuss using as a metric DOE’s requirement to provide 

information within a certain number of days 

Meeting 5 

7/02 

1. The Dose Reconstruction Working Group will meet in 

Cincinnati on August 13-14 (half day). They will meet 

with Dr. Neton and some of his staff, review some case 

studies, CD ROMs of data, etc., to prepare for the dose 

reconstruction reviews. 

Meetings held 8/13-

14/2002 

COMPLETED 

2. Ms. Gadola, Dr. Anderson, Ms. Munn, Mr. Presley and 

Dr. Ziemer comprise the workgroup to formalize the 

Board’s SEC recommendations. 

Letter prepared 8/22 

and sent to Scty. 

COMPLETED 

27